I remember back in '99 when Charlie Benton wrote:
> I'm looking for a distribution that runs in 4 megs of ram has most of the
> tools I need for client oriented stuff. I don't need any server stuff at all.
> I do need the ability to connect to the internet via modem. Also I want the
> ability to at least be able to compile any other software I might want to add
> if the distribution does not have a package manager.
I would say go with an older install of Slackware, Debian, or RedHat. I
know I've installed RH 3.0.3 and Slackware 2.x and 3.x on 4mb machines
(laptops, actually). I've got CD-ROM's for Slackware 3.0, Debian 0.93R6,
and RedHat 3.0.3, if you would like to borrow these (Even if you don't
have a CD, stuff like Slackware can be put on floppies very easily
if you have access to a CD-ROM somewhere)
Compiling is going to be really, really, really slow on a 4mb machine.
On a 486 with a slow IDE hard drive, it might take 14-15 hours to
build the 1.2 kernel. It is much easier to compile things on other
machine and transfer them over. The only problem then is library
issues. You might want to tuck a small slackware (e.g.) install
on a faster/more memory machine and just transfer stuff over. That
said, it /is/ possible to do this. My primary linux machine
was a 4mb 386sx-25 for a year or so..
> I've seen alot of small
> distributions out there but they are all for single disk installations or
> UMBDOS. Disk space is not the issue I am concered with. I am more interested
> in the amount of memory that is used on average. I'm probibly could configure
> a distribution like Debian to have the characteristics I am looking for but I
> do not know where to get started.
I imagine any recent distribution is going to give you problems with
the kernel, to start with. A 1.2.13 kernel may be behind the times,
but they can have a much smaller memory footprint compared to
2.0.x or 2.2.x. When you take out a 1.8mb chunk of 4mb of memory
you don't have much left..
> Would it be as simple as emlinating some
> demaons in my startup scripts or could I get some benifits out of making
> changes to the kernel?
Definitely pare the kernel down as small as you can possibly get it.
I /think/ 1.2.13 had basic support for modules (I know I'd used them
before 2.0, and I don't think I was running a 1.3 kernel).. They
can be handy but even a static kernel with everything ripped out
that you don't need will help.
> I know there are alot of issues involved here and that
> is part of the problem. I am looking for any information which might help me
> define what steps I need to take to create this small memory configurtion.
There is a Small-Memory mini-HOWTO, though it doesn't go into too much
detail. There were a couple of web pages which talked about really
hacking the kernel to get linux into 1.5 or 2mb. YIKES That's probably
not needed.
http://smalllinux.netpedia.net/
might be useful, as well.
I've had some experience doing this, so let me know if you have more
questions.
Matt
--
/* Matt Sayler -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- atwork?astronomy:cs
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/mpsayler -- (512)471-7450
Have you ever imagined a world with no hypothetical situations? */
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
